The dog ate my death threats II

I feel I can throw some light on this matter as I am undoubtedly the person who is alleged to have shown my gun licence to people at the dinner. That is not accurate. At the mediocre dinner on the first day I was approached by Dr Maxine Cooper, then the Commissioner for the environment, who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT which occurs each winter. After politely asking if she could sit next to me she asked me how I had gone in the recent licence test which is challenging. I told her I had topped it with a perfect score and showed her my current culling licence, not gun licence, to prove it. The conversation around the table then drifted around the benefits of eating game meat v the poor fare on offer.

It should be mentioned that two participants departed the process at the conclusion of day 1. One sceptic left because of the stress involved with dealing with the different perspectives and the way in which some participants initially interacted with those perspectives. Another, deep climate sceptic left the process without providing a reason, but apparently did so because of a perception that persons’ particular perspective was not getting enough of an airing as a minority view. Nevertheless, a number of climate sceptics remained to participate in the forum and, following a number of robust exchanges within particular sections of the group, a greater level of tolerance and reciprocal understanding of those perspectives was finally achieved.

an incident in Australia earlier this month when university researchers were rushed to a secure location after receiving death threats.

Sounds very serious.

One of the ANU emails refers specifically to an incident relating to a gun licence. The email is dated June 2, 2010.
While not wanting to trivialise the incident there doesn’t seem to be any sense of urgency in that email. Also note the first sentence.

Looks like we’ve had our first serious threat of physical violence.

If Graham Readfern’s post on the timing of the events is correct

He said: “I and my Climate Change Institute staff were moved to more secure quarters around March/April 2010 because of concerns my staff had about the very open and accessible premises we had at that time. I had a duty of care to my staff to respond to these concerns. The move was taken in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor and with the ANU security office. This, of course, is well before the Jan-Jun 2011 period that the FOI request is concerned with.”

This country is full of overpaid wankers ,universities get too much funding if they can pay these idiots.Abolish unis ,have colleges of Medicine,Engineering and True Science we dont need lawyers ,b,a s and m.b.a.s Parliament is full of them and look at the dogs breakfast that is .aA very very expensive Kindergarten.

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency have confirmed that the decision to commission and publish a document called Accurate Answers to Professor Plimer’s 101 Climate Change Science Questions was made in reaction to outrage from teachers and scientists about Ian Plimer’s climate sceptic book aimed at children.

Sinclair — if I got that sort of threat, I’d report it and ask management to do something about it also. Who wouldn’t? Do we live in a place where people ignore death threats? I should hope not. I’d specifically force them to register it with the police as well.

Sorry Gab, but there are lots of crazy people in the world. Reporting this sort of stuff is just standard practice. You get it all the time in some organizations. Last person that did it where I worked ended up jumping under a train, and I guess anyway that ends up doing that certainly could have had the potential to do other things.

This starts reminding me of that South Park episode that got censored. No-one said they’d kill anyone, so Comedy Central must have been pussies after all.

Anyway, he did not make the statement that he had a ‘license’ and was a ‘sniper’? (really? in what war?) to the person he supposedly took exception to in the afternoon’s lecture (he apparently said it to other people and we do not know in what context the comments were made) AND we do not know for what reason he was called away on day 2.

In this case, an apple plus a mushroom does not make a fruit salad.

Oh, the thrill of it all! A death threat! Legitimacy! Be still, thy trembling bowels.

Gab, unfortunately it’s hard to evaluate what happens with death threats. The person could be schizophrenic etc., and this is something you don’t know. This is why workplacs are obliged to act (perhaps a lawyer can confirm this, but I imagine they have a legal obligation to do so), and the reason is obvious — being wrong 1 time out of 100 is enough to make you act.

There were no death threats in the comedy central case either. But it’s pretty clear why they acted. If you guys think that this sort of stuff is all fine and dandy, then you should be have no problems with the nutters that threatened comedy doing what they did.

Were the police called in, Conrad? No. Did the guy turn up the next day? No. Apparently there were “lots” of death threats and the ANU has put them online. Did you even read them Conrad?

unfortunately it’s hard to evaluate what happens with death threats. The person could be schizophrenic etc., and this is something you don’t know.

One more time. The guy showed people his gun license and said he was a good shot – “how good a sniper he is”. Sounds like he was boasting about his [possibly] new license and boasting about how well he shoots.

From this you, and the alarmists, have gleaned that the guy shoots people but he does so with a legally registered weapon. Mind you, no mention of a gun was made. No reports that his behavior, in general over the course of the, was disturbing – other than he left a lecture early. But he went to the dinner that night. No reports that he caused a commotion; no reports he actually made a threat. Nothing. Just a conversation.

Gab, unfortunately it’s hard to evaluate what happens with death threats. The person could be schizophrenic etc., and this is something you don’t know. This is why workplacs are obliged to act (perhaps a lawyer can confirm this, but I imagine they have a legal obligation to do so), and the reason is obvious — being wrong 1 time out of 100 is enough to make you act.

Absolute self-serving bullshit Conrad. The fact is that Australian academia is infected with liars and drama queens, who went sprung, invariably squeal “death threat”!

And these guys pretend to know what the climate is going to do in 2050.

Not only. They also also know that the cold year was 1032. Seriously.

Back at the start of McIntyre’s research into the area of paleoclimate, one of the most significant of these was called Polar Urals, a chronology first published by Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. At the time, it was used in pretty much every temperature reconstruction around. In his paper, Briffa made the startling claim that the coldest year of the millennium was AD 1032, a statement that, if true, would have completely overturned the idea of the Medieval Warm Period.

a better explanation is that they live in a parallel universe where what is obvious to us, is totally arcane to them – I don’t think they are lying at all, they just happen to have interpreted the incident in a particular way, the lefty way, which is the real problem. They have been fabricating their narratives since Plato’s time.

Henrik Svensmark discovered a startling connection between the cosmic ray flux from space and cloud cover and recent results from Cern confirms this research.
Comics’ Leaving Outdoor Droplets or the CLOUD . Are you aware of the science? Are you aware of its implications to the “Consensus” on climate change and AGW.
Our weather is not climate. I am deeply offended that you use the deaths of loved ones in the recent Victorian bush fires to peddle lies to the community about climate change and its affects.You should be ashamed that policy is driving the science and
that you are putting your voice behind policy rather than truth. Are you morally and ethically aware (awake) of your actions? ALSO Please stop telling lies
about sea level rises. It is so full of BS it is not funny it is insulting to anyone with enough intelligence to do simple research about sea level rises.
I ask that you seek the truth objectively and use your voice for truth. I am all for renewable energy, a greener society and less pollution but you and I both know the carbon tax is fraudulent and will hurt many people for the sake of a few. The carbon tax will not change our climate for the better it will have no affect at all.

pass t ..to boy…
heard on l laney show today…what a fckn load of pseudo scaremongering
turd.. at youd expect from someone sucking of the tit of the public sow..
coz of he had to make money in the private sector he’d be fcked..
You’ll be pleased to know willie boy all of us ‘stupid ignorant’ australians out there
came on the radio after you went and panned the fck out of you and your idiotic
toilet…
“these deniers have no qualifications in climate science’-oh yeh? and flannerys a
paleontologist-you dckhead…
yuppie turds the lot of ya..why dont ya all fck off to yr beloved europe where their
economies are fckd because of stupid schemes like yours and leave us to run this great
country as it should be..

Conrad @5.01 regarding death threats. There are those you take seriously, and those you don’t. I had death threat on my blog several years ago – apparently I should be a)hung upside down from a tree and beaten and b)raped in front of my father or something like it.

I’m not exactly Ms. Sooperanonymoose, so it’s not like someone couldn’t track me down if they wanted. Considering that I like to follow islamic anti-social activity and report on it, people who would threaten me are more likely to carry it out than people who threaten climate ‘scientists’.

How do you people sleep at night, you and that old idiot . They pay you thousands to feed us ordinary hard working normal folk bullshit.
You come from well to do families who have never earned or done an honest days work in your life. You overpaid over educated parasite. Get a real job and pay your dues you leech

Some knob waves a gun license around and tells me they’re a good shot, I challenge them to meet me at the range, and bet them a slab I’ll outshoot them. What academic pussies see as a death threat, I see as a challenge.

Conrad, you made such a big deal regarding an employers need to act, it turns out the VC thought so much about it that he couldnt be stuffed reading the supposed death threats and hence making a determination on the veracity of said threats.

Seems like the faculty members wanted more sympathy, less scrutiny and better digs.

It’s now an own-goal of Gleikian proportions. One for the hard core climate activist to push down the memory hole and never mention again.

I honestly can’t think of anything any climate activist has ever said which has actually turned out to be true.

I can’t imagine what it is like to go on with that kind of disconnect between fantasy in your head and reality on the ground, I really can’t. It must be like being a 200 kg pizza scoffing slob who looks in the mirror and sees Brad Pitt staring back. That’s how far from reality their fantasies are. Are they trying to kid the rest of us, or just themselves?

Climate zombieism achieves its righteous orgasm only if the amoeba concerned genuinely believes it is fighting a boardroomful of cigar-chomping blokes in white suits and ten-gallon hats in Houston, Tx, and all their murderous surrogates fanning out around the globe with telemetric orders to eliminate Rajendra’s heroes who are desperately trying to save the world BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE. Fairy princesses like Anna Rose fall asleep each night dreaming these fabulous Disney children’s stories.

The weird thing is why you would point out having a gun license when making a threat. Is the threatener saying he is dangerous because he has a license – because most people assume that, if you do not have a license, it would be impossible to shoot them?

“That’s it you prick! I’m going to smash your head in, ‘cos I have a carpenters’ certificate from TAFE.

I feel I can throw some light on this matter as I am undoubtedly the person who is alleged to have shown my gun licence to people at the dinner. That is not accurate. At the mediocre dinner on the first day I was approached by Dr Maxine Cooper, then the Commissioner for the environment, who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT which occurs each winter. After politely asking if she could sit next to me she asked me how I had gone in the recent licence test which is challenging. I told her I had topped it with a perfect score and showed her my current culling licence, not gun licence, to prove it. The conversation around the table then drifted around the benefits of eating game meat v the poor fare on offer.

It is, of course, possible that this has gone through a game of chinese whispers to be elevated into a concerning event.

Before making judgement, however, cautious people would like to hear the account given by other people – you know, actual witnesses – in the room.

It’s very touching (sarc) how Catallaxy thinks that no one who agrees with them on climate change could be a worrisome nutter who you wouldn’t want turning up at your office. Yet we know (from video this time) that things like turning up at public talk and waving a noose around is thought to all be part of fair rhetoric.

Great video steve! Nice label, what is a climate denier? Call that a death threat? You have got to be joking.

Someone made the comparison with the threats that prompted suppression of material on South Park. The diffence is that those other guys (who Tim Blair calls Presbyterians to be tactful) do real things like flying planes into buildings, beheading people and murdering girls who don’t go along with arranged marriages.

I was filled in on this annual ritual when I moved down here and needless to say, the inevitable greenslime intervention has transformed what should be a fairly simple process into something resembling high farce.

@john – thanks for giving your version, I hope this connects all the dots.

I’d like to point out that I stated several threads back that the most likely explanation for the ‘gun licence’ incident was that the topic was somehow revolving around shooting. I deduced this through occams razor – the simplest explanation of comments about a gun licence is in the context of a discussion about gun licences.

That, and if the conversation had indeed been about threatening to kill, it would have been headline news.

I would call him a “worrisome nutter who you wouldn’t want turning up at your office.”

I am on the Readfern side of this – the abusive emails which I have no doubt have hit the inboxes of many climate scientists and which refer to wishing the recipients die might not be treated by many people – including police – as “death threats” worth worrying about.

They are in any event – as with waving a noose at a public lecture – appalling behaviour designed to intimidate and upset the recipient.

Instead of calling this out as appalling behaviour, participants here are more interested in criticising the recipients, which is what I find appalling.

Christian Kerr: if you are going to do your job properly, I trust you will seek to speak to other witnesses in the room other than John Coochery.

You might also ask for some detail from ANU about the earlier incidents (well before the period of the FOI request) which led to the change in location of the climate scientists.

The criticism towards the recipients is directed towards them being barefaced liars who fabricated a story and didn’t even put in the legwork to make it remotely believable.

When each of these complete, evidence-free untruths has been unpicked, you keep retreating further and further back to the point where we are no longer talking about death threats and secure locations, but to a point where some people had their feelings hurt. I assume that this line will be further retreated from, just like all the others have been.

Then you have the arrogance to try and lecture a journalist on how to do their job properly, when sloppy journalism with no fact checking led to this entire charade in the first place.

I am on the Readfern side of this – the abusive emails which I have no doubt have hit the inboxes of many climate scientists

The other day you went on about ‘hundreds, if not thousands’ of abusive emails, or some such. A pitiful handful of what could be called ‘robust’ emails have been presented. I’m sure it is a grain of sand to what Bolt has to put up with. But then he deserves it, doesn’t he?

Quite frankly I’m hopping mad about the fact that this utterly monstrous scam still hasn’t had a stake driven through its suppurating, sclerotic heart. It doesn’t seem to matter how much evidence there is that completely debunks the warmist morons and their preposterous fraudulent (untestable) hypothesis, they just will not let it go. They are extremely, unjustifiably and unforgivably proud (as are vile morons like ruff and dullard). As we all know, pride cometh before a fall.

Therefore, these warmy scum deserve all the abuse they get and more. I want them to keep looking over their dandruff flecked shoulders and I want them to be wary of flogging the latest hysterical, fact and evidence free fraud.

I’ve been hearing incessantly about this utter bollocks for well over two decades now and there is still not one definitive piece of evidence that supports any of this ‘catastrophic human induced climate change’ malarkey in any way, shape or form.

What is becoming obvious however is because of this utter crap, people in the third world are being denied the right to economic development and that people in this country are hurting big time. My quarterly power bill in 1997 was $80. Now it is $420. That’s over a fivefold increase in just 15 years. If I wasn’t a high income earner, or I had a family to support, I’d probably be out there getting in the faces of the evil morons responsible this anti scientific, anti-progress and anti-human idiocy.

I’ve been around for six decades, living in the same region of OZ and weather has been same-same with the usual ups and downs. Add my mother’s additional seven decades of similar experience and there’s 130 years of accumulated experience. Obviously we have been very lucky to escape the GW ravages that must have occurred elsewhere.

Right; so the only ‘real’ death threat, that is the sharp-shooter with a gun licence, was really John discussing the culling of kangaroos.

One can see the logical extension from that to mass hysteria of the convenient kind, amongst ‘climate scientists’ [my candidate for oxymoron of the year] about a barrage of ‘death-threats’, just as one can see the logical extension from the fact that CO2 can absorb, in a limited way energy from radiation of certain precise wavelengths, to a theory which says the world is going to blow up.

The lessons from this are:

1 Climate scientists are advocates who willingly and continually exaggerate and lie

For all this condemnation of the use of “death threat” when referring to unsolicited emails which express the hope that the recipient dies, Catallaxy likes to play loose with the terminology when it suits:

The ClimateGate team have been trying to strip Pat Michaels of his PhD. This is the same crowd that was threatening physical violence:

Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Steve – you give it up. You’ve been handed a major defeat by the evidence. Go off an fight some other losing battle somewhere.

There was no death threats. When challenged to provide evidence, there were zero emails. When challenged that there were zero emails, someone comes up with the ‘gun licence’ story.

When the gun licence story is uncovered, it is, as predicted, a completely different discussion with zero context linking to climate science. In fact, it turns out that the discussion was, wait for it, about guns. Talking about guns and shooting in the context of culling roos would be acceptable even if the Queen was in on the conversation. In fact, it would be inhumane to cull roos with people who are a bad shot, hence the licensing.

There never were any death threats, just some unpleasant emails. You can dance and point and obfuscate and throw unicorns out by the dozen, but this simple fact doesn’t change. The entire story was not only a complete beat up, it was a complete and utter lie.

As usual, climate ‘scientists’ have been caught in the web of their lies and deceit, and have suffered a series of own goals. It’s a very repeatable pattern, one which betrays what is rotten at the heart of the entire AGW scare industry – scares and stories are all they have, there are no facts underpinning the entire edifice.

I feel I can throw some light on this matter as I am undoubtedly the person who is alleged to have shown my gun licence to people at the dinner. That is not accurate. At the mediocre dinner on the first day I was approached by Dr Maxine Cooper, then the Commissioner for the environment, who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT which occurs each winter. After politely asking if she could sit next to me she asked me how I had gone in the recent licence test which is challenging. I told her I had topped it with a perfect score and showed her my current culling licence, not gun licence, to prove it. The conversation around the table then drifted around the benefits of eating game meat v the poor fare on offer.

John Coochey

11 May 12 at 7:07 am

So the CAT strikes again in getting to the truth and refusing to believe bullshit at face value.

What a great site this is.

I repeat

Ian Chubb now needs to resign. If there are any senior Libs reading this you will have to think carefully about wanting this person in any senior role either at the university or working for the government after the next election.

It seems to me that this current government surrounds itself with the worst types.. the real low slung dregs of our nation. Absolutely amazing.

hahahhaha No Rafe… I was actually up pretty early this morn. I didn’t read up-thread until now as I saw Christian Kerr’s request for John C to email him and was curious what that was about.

It then hit me like a brick.

Before reading John C’s account, i honestly thought there was smoke with the fire. If John C’s account is to be believed and I see no reason why not at this stage, those turds simply lied their heads off.

If this isn’t academic/professional misconduct I don’t know what is. It’s really serious stuff and it appears to me that Ian Chubb, the nation’s so-called chief scientist was either in the middle, orchestrating it, or simply didn’t verify evidence to the allegations. In any case either is serious.

Now Chubb could have say provided those drama queens more security and done so silently to give the impression of taking preventative steps, but that of course is not what occurred and he should therefore resign. Of course the current government wouldn’t ask for his immediate resignation, but the Libs should on the first day they are in government. That should also include any duties at the ANU. They also need to seriously consider the standing of the drama queens that instigated this too.

Cos: Or a “fckn load of pseudo scaremongering turds” who should “all fck off to yr beloved europe where their economies are fckd because of stupid schemes like yours and leave us to run this great country as it should be..” [Doc 2] – OK by me.

Perhaps I should Steve. However it doesn’t take away the fact that if my impressions are correct, then there needs to be a few resignations forced or otherwise.

When the nation’s chief scientist appears to me to engage in this sort of activity and give voice to this level of inaccuracy …. which could have been easily verified.. then he has no standing left to hold that position or senior positions at the ANU.

Perhaps he was acting honestly, in that he believed death threats were made, however he never verified the accusations. That’s not what a chief scientist does. A clown would do that. A chubby one at that too.

Excellent idea, but JC just promise me when you get your show the first person you interview will be Swan. Deal?

Sure Gab. As long as it’s a locked room and he can’t leave until I decide.

There are numerous questions I would like to get to going as far back as the Godwin G saga. For example I really want to get to the bottom of accusations that car dealer in Queensland were getting special deals. Denial won’t be accepted as an answer.

“Climate change” has become the new “terra nullius”. A discourse for thick, ill-informed, and unethical school teachers and academics to hide the fact they are thick, ill-informed, and unethical, by shaking down the taxpayers for billions to fund their latest leftist fad. “Climate justice” anybody?

The only explanation which fits the facts is that the climate scientists are either fucking kangaroos or, fucking kangaroos.

Maybe they’re so in sympathy with nature that a threat to kangaroos is a threat to them personally. Or something.

I took the showing gun licence/”I’m a good shot” thing semi-seriously, it’s hilarious it’s turned out to be so completely innocent. I’ve learnt my lesson: start with the assumption that anything a ‘climate scientist’ tells you is wrong, then work from there.

All too much information for the herd, which included Percy our gun-man. As the email shows, he went AWOL for a day, turned up for the Friday dinner (as one does), flashed his gun licence while bragging about his aim, and was banned from the delights of Day 3 of the seminar. We get hints of the excitement even in the boring old research paper: etc

@biota yes I went and posted a comment just for fun, because I know how much the idea of shooting roos upsets the average pommie. I saw a demonstration in downtown London one day where a bunch of useless idiots were protesting that Sainsbury’s were selling roo meat, and that it was cruel and blah blah blah. I think Sainsburys welshed and pulled the meat and denied many pomsters decent protein at an affordable price.

I was the first sceptic referred to in the updates – the one that was “stressed”. That is a correct description. What I was stressed about was the incredibly manipulative way in which the so-called “forum” was conducted.

For example, Messrs Steffen and his team delivered presentations on various aspects of climate change. We were not allowed to ask questions, or to challenge the multifarious false statements made. Instead, we broke out into groups, with the idea that a group could ask a question. Of course, each group was dominated by “warmists”, and the lone sceptic in each group was a) abused, b) derided, c) not listened to.

The result was that Steffen and co were presented with soft questions that were based largely on ill-informed views, convenient to the organisers.

It is true that I was feeling stressed. But the reason was because while this was billed as an open-ranging discussion, in fact it was a tightly choreographed, manipulative discussion designed to capture an outcome favourable to the warmists. In no way was it a fair discussion.

All this soon became clear to me, and it was evident to me that it was fruitless and pointless to stay. I explained my issue to the organiser, and then left.

I met John Coochey at the forum. He is a knowledgeable and capable person, and I trust his account of the events relating to his gun license.

Note to self: When around warmists, don’t mention you own a car. They might expect you to run them over. Which makes sense, given the precautionary principle that is at the very heart of warmist science.

I always act on my email threats if I am ignored. Usual result is a Court application, but then again, that is what I threatened in the first place!

Love how this was beaten up into a media circus.

If it was made to a real estate salesman, would it have got 1 single journo / politician’s interest?

I (and a large number of collegues) work in a highly controversial and public job, and receive “death threats” like the one made at that ANU dinner everyday.

I (and my collegues) am required to report these threats, and am often assked if I (we) want to be moved to ‘secure premises’ or have other precautions taken to ensure my (our) safety. Not once has this offer been taken up by any of us.

Why?

Because the threats are so rarely followed through by their makers that I (and my collegues) have more chance of winning Tattslotto than suffering any injury as a result of the threats.

The ANU Warmenista scientists have fudged these “threats” in the same way they have fudged their “data” to “prove” AGW… It’s a crock, and should be treated as such.

Liberty Quote

The first duty of a prosecutor, as an officer of the court, is to uphold the rule of law. By withholding exculpatory evidence, these prosecutors failed to do so. A judge should not have to give a prosecutor an order to follow the law.